Today's totally baffling right wing quote

From this Yahoo News story.

So Dick Cheney has, for once, done something that almost seems reasonable. Namely, he refused to endorse the anti-gay-marriage constitutional amendment.

So not only do Tony Perkins and his ilk somehow believe that it’s wrong for my cousin and her SO to get married (which I disagree with in the strongest terms possible), and not only do they believe that that marriage would somehow “damage traditional marriage” (which I can’t say I disagree with, because one has to understand the point of something to disagree with it, and I don’t think there’s a point there), and not only do they favor dishonoring one of the great triumphs of human intellect by AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION to do so (which I disagree with to the extent of near-apoplexy), but they think that this issue is more important than, gee, I don’t know, the fucking economy?


Not that I agree with them, but day to day fiscal policy would not be as important as this if you view it as a more fundimental issue, a basic idea of philosophy and values that will be used as the basis for future desicions.

Is this the same Tony Perkins who only received 10% of the vote in Louisiana two years ago?

As much as I dislike Cheney, I have to say good for him! I would pit Tony Perkins and his Council, but you already did. So sticking their sanctimonious hypocritical noses in people’s private business is more important than the economy, defense, empoyment or anything else. May the Great Ham descend upon Perkins in righteous wrath and abominable fury. May his hemmorhoids prosper and multiply.

Meh, I guess even an evil, sadistic piece of shit is capable of being right once in a great eon.

Cheney has a gay daughter. I guess even reptilian arch-conservatives love their kids.

I really, really doubt anyone with a modicum of intelligence sincerely believes the “damage to tradition marriage” business. It is simply the only way anti-gay marriage Republicans can express their opposition to gay marriage in a political way. Being against gay marriage really doesn’t follow well from anything Republicans have traditionally stood for. So they shoehorned it into the vague notion of “traditional/family values.”

I voted for Bush/Cheney in 2000 because this was their public line on the then “civil unions issue.” It’s clearly too late for them to go back to it now, after all the terrible things they tried to do to America’s innocent gays and lesbians. But this does partially redeem Dick Cheney as a human being in my mind.

Didn’t Tony Perkins play Norman Bates in Psycho?

As Diogenes pointed out, Cheney’s daughter is a lesbian, so he’s against the amendment. And Nancy Reagan came out in favor of stem-cell research after Ronald had Alzheimer’s. It’s kind of surprising how quickly people will change their minds on a policy if it actually affects someone they love.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

You forgot to invoke the murrain upon his mess of pottage.

By the way, will you be signing up as a full-time member when your Guestship is up?

[old salt]

I like the cut of your jib, matey.

[/old salt]

Now all we need is more than 50 percent of the other bigots to have gay children.

Yeah, but that means that they would have to. . .you know. . .have sex.

And that’s something that I just can’t condone.


Perfectly said.

I’m wishing I were as naive as I was a few months ago, back when I still believed that people could recognize an unfair situation when they saw it. Now I’m really starting to believe that that’s what it’s going to take – people are going to just keep saying “relax, there are more important things to worry about” or “these things take time” or “we just have a difference of opinion; calm down because you’re just hurting your cause” until something happens that makes it directly affect them.

The bit I found most interesting from the article was that Lynne Cheney spoke out against the amendment before it came to a vote. What’s the matter, Dick? You can only speak with a conscience once the issue’s already been decided?

Cheney’s speech is better than nothing, and a lot more than I ever would’ve expected from the man. But still, “leave it up to the states to decide” is far from a glowing endorsement, speaking out after the vote’s already taken place and the issue no longer has as much political weight shows questionable timing, and I’m highly skeptical that he’d be talking about “freedom” if it didn’t affect his family directly. I’m not signing up for his fan club just yet, thanks.


This is nothing more than the Republican ticket trying to have it both ways yet again. Cheney stated his preference for leaving the matter of SSM to the states back in the 2000 campaign. Then as soon as Evil Fucker, excuse me, I mean President Bush, called for a constitutional amendment Cheney jumped all over it. Now that it turns out the American people don’t want the amendment and it’s been defeated in the Senate, Dicky Boy has exactly enough political cover that he can go back to his previous position and have people who have apparently forgotten his previous stance to say things like “good for him!”

Bottom line is he is still opposed to legal SSM in any form and his love for his daughter doesn’t extend as far as wanting her to have the legal protections and societal acceptance that a legal marriage would bring.

Dickhead Cheney gets no credit for this blatant craven dishonest political maneuver. Fuck him and his asshole boss.

I know it isn’t exactly news, but can I just say that my blood boils when I see the term “pro-family”?

For one thing, it puts their opponents in the category of “anti-family”. For another, it’s a pure lie. I am strongly in favor of people forming emotional ties to one another strong enough to consider themselves “family”, regardless of who those people are. Bigots like Perkins, however, are decidedly against any family that happens to consist of two men or two women who love one another. So how can he claim to be “pro-family” while I’m not?

Worst euphemism ever. Even beats out “homicide bombers”.

Cheney’s latest views on this are featured quite prominently on the site of my (sub)party:

Key word being “latest.” The articles on that site make mention of Cheney’s most recent comments as well as his comments during a debate back in 2000. They gloss over the fact that when Bush was pushing for the amendment, Cheney spoke in support of the president:

Thanks for the heads-up, Otto. I hadn’t heard Cheney’s comments at the beginning of the amendment debate, or during the presidential debate in 2000 (because I hadn’t been paying attention). Clearly, talking the party line and putting the political goals of his administration ahead of his family or his conscience is what’s most important to Cheney.

No, he’s the weatherman on Good Morning America.

You’re thinking of Marlin Perkins.

How in the world does gay marriage “threaten” straight marriage, anyway? Are we replacing the latter with the former? Will EVERYONE be forced to marry their own gender?

'Cause that’s how the anti-SSM people act: "We CAN’T legalize Same Sex Marriage! If we do, everyone will have to turn GAY!!"